Kriminalizaciâ narušeniâ prava na zaŝitu kak sredstvo ego obespečeniâ (opyt nacionalʹnogo normotvorčestva)

• Autorzy: Oleksandr Zhytnyi , Mykhailo Spiridonov , Andrii Vasyliev

Warianty tytułu

Criminalisation of Violation of the Right to Defence as a Remedy for Its Enforcement (National Legislative Experience)

• Języki publikacji: RU

Abstrakty

EN

The opportunity of admission of the right to defence as an independent object of criminal law protection is analysed in this article. Such opportunity has been considered with the reference to the procedural, constitutional, international law and European aspects of the value of this right. The system-structural, dialectical and comparative methods, as well as the axiological (value) approach were chosen as a methodology for the implementation of the research task. The potential models of criminalisation of violation of the right to defence have been identified as a result.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Criminal Law; Criminology

PL

Prawo karne; Kryminalistyka

• Czasopismo: Przegląd Europejski
• Rocznik: 2021
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 191--199

Twórcy

autor

Oleksandr Zhytnyi

• V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University (Kharkiv, Ukraine)

autor

Mykhailo Spiridonov

• Kharkiv Regional Administrative Court (Kharkiv, Ukraine)

autor

Andrii Vasyliev

• Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs (Kharkiv, Ukraine)

Bibliografia

• 1. ALBRECHT Peter-Alexis (2012), Zabytaâ svoboda. Printsipy ugolovnogo prava v evropeĭskoĭ diskussii o bezopasnosti, Kharkiv.
• 2. BRIDGES Katrice L. (2004), The forgotten constitutional right to present a defense and its impact on the acceptance of responsibility - Entrapment Debate, "Michigan Law Review, vol. 103, issue 2. https://doi.org/10.2307/4141921
• 3. CASE OF KROMBACH v. FRANCE (2001) of 13 February 2001, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (Application no. 29731/96), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59211 (13.05.2001).
• 4. CASE OF CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE (2015) of 15 January 2015, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (Application no. 17735/06), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-192473 (15.04.2015).
• 5. FULEI Taras (2015), Zastosuvannia praktyky Evropeĭskoho sudu z prav liudyny pry zdiĭsnenni pravosuddia: Naukovo-metodychnyi posibnyk dlâ suddiv, Kyiv.
• 6. HROSHEVYI Yuriy, TATSII Vasyl, TUMANIANTS Anush (2013), Kryminalnyĭ protses: pidruchnyk,Kharkiv.
• 7. KOBLIKOV Aleksandr (1961), Pravo obvinâemogo na zaschitu pri proizvodstve predvaritelnogo sledstviâ, Moskva.
• 8. MARKUSH Mariya (2007), Pryntsyp zmahalnosti v kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy, Kharkiv.
• 9. PRYLUTSKYI Serhyi (2012),Vstup do teorii sudovoi vlady (Suspilstvo. Pravosuddia. Derzhava), Kyiv.
• 10. SPIRIDONOV Mykhailo (2016), Responsibility for violation of the rihgt to protection under criminal law of foreign countries, "Forum prava", no. 5, Kharkiv, http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/FP_index.htm_2016_5_32 (29.09.2016).
• 11. YAVORSKYI Bohdan (2010), Spryânnia zakhystu jak neobkhidna umova zabezpechennia funktsionuvannia zasady zmahalnosti u kryminalnomu sudochynstvi, Lviv.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.21.11